Acquisition of land for which higher compensation sought can’t be challenged: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru:

When an application is filed before the authorities seeking enhancement of compensation for land acquisition, the same acquisition cannot be challenged in a writ petition, the Karnataka High Court has said. The court dismissed an appeal filed by original land owners in Mysuru whose land was acquired in 1996. Basheer Ahmed, Tajuddin Pasha, S Ameer Jan, GB Eshwarappa, Susheela, GS Veeresh, GS Mangala and GS Renuka Prasanna had purchased land totalling 10 acres and 10 guntas in Mandakalli village on May 6, 1996.

The Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) issued a notification on November 28, 1996 to acquire these lands for establishing a heavy truck terminal. The objections of the land owners were overruled and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in November 1997. In February 1998, the land owners filed applications before the Civil Court for re-determination of compensation. Then in 2011 these land owners filed a petition in the HC challenging the land acquisition.

They contended that the acquisition proceedings in respect of these lands had lapsed. The single-judge bench however dismissed the petition on grounds of delay and latches. The land owners filed an appeal before the division bench of the HC against the single judge order in 2013. It was heard by Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty who gave their judgement recently. Delay and Latches The Division Bench noted that, “The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground that the appellants who had filed the application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 seeking enhancement of compensation cannot maintain the writ petition.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said, “We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches and also on the ground that the appellants cannot maintain a writ petition questioning proceedings after having filed an application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”